About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
to the columbia school of law and follow that with some other academic -- welcome back to the world of academia. you were the u.s. representative in pakistan during a challenging time. you helped mend relations between the two countries during a series of crisis in 2001, in particular. 2011 was indeed -- it was no small achievement. i suppose we all came to know what this crisis taught you about pakistan and the u.s. and about the relationship between the two countries. will the relations ever be the same? that is the question all lot of people have in mind. how is it likely to evolve? what are the challenges ahead? these are some of the questions and i guess there will be many more. i understand you intend to replace that in the larger context and the relation with pakistan since 2008. this is something we will welcome as well. ambassador, we are most honored to have you. we have -- we're very honored that you have chosen carnegie first since returning from islamabad. [applause] >> it is great to see a number of friends today. i thank you all for coming here. i am retired, they cannot get me a
to the -- for the middle-class families. that is why i passed the connecticut's them sell law, which is saving lives and the people to work. i went to congress to stand for manufacturing and fight outsourcing. that is me. that is my story. it is a very different story from the demands. over and over again, she has shown as she stands up for herself and her profits at the expense of the people that work for her and at the expense of this state. i will stand for only one thing, the middle class of this state. i look forward to the next hour. >> our first question to mr. murphy. >> both of you have had personal financial problems. mr. murphy, you have been sued for nonpayment of mortgage bills. mrs. mcmahon committee filed for bankruptcy and walked away from that. how can connecticut voters felt confident that you will be able to exercise good judgment on the federal budgets -- federal budget decisions facing connecticut taxpayers when you have mismanaged your own personal finances? >> thank you for this question. as i said, i have made mistakes in my own personal finances. but i made those mistakes an
campaign finance should be regulated, the current state of affairs is that the law is unclear and no one knows if the decisions will stand or get knocked down. it is insane, the wild west. it bodes poorly for us to understand what powers are at work. it is worth mentioning the stock act recently passed which will have new information for us to sink our teeth into a realm financial disclosures. financial transactions have to be disclosed monthly. there are certain things in their we worry about. that is a whole nother set of information. the third thing i want to mention is how political power functions. , the structure of the political dialogue. right now it is a mess. this is not the rules committee fault. in ways it is obama's fault. this is something to think about as you think about how the house works and what kind of tools we should build on the outside. when i look at the different categories of congressional information, it to the things we worked hard on, one is taking advantage of political pressures that exist. nonprofits would love to be able to create political pressure. we
there is a law that says it is on the books and you eliminate that right, and it gets this heightened scrutiny. there seems to be no reason for that except for the class of people that you are removing from this. it makes a difference. the right was there after the court found it after this whole history of the citizens having passed referendum to block it in the courts. that is not matter if it was there for a year or a day. that is not an equal protection violation. anything you can never take it a way. he says it is not a one-way ratchet. engine cannot take it away. that really only applies to the situation in california. the supreme court has not made its call. possible they will take it to shoot them down. if they approve it, and they probably would let it stands. it is such a quirky opinion that it will not have that brought up an effect. the ninth circuit is not viewed by others as a very controlling kind of precedence. there is an arguably controlling pace. it is a summary of a similar challenge to minnesota laws. the courts really gave this and did not consider it. the supreme court m
, charles -- i referenced the religious freedom restoration act. it was a law passed virtually unanimously by congress, signed by president clinton in 1993 in order to restore the scope of religious freedom that had existed. it was struck down as applied to the states in 1997 but still applied to the federal government. i think we have already had two earlier decisions from district court on the merits of that, both of them involving private for-profit plaintiffs, and the issue is split just among those first two courts. there are procedural issues because of the ongoing regulatory process that might create a sort of interim step, but that actually is probably going to get resolved between now and august 1, 2013. the administrative process will be done, and the courts will invariably go straight to the merits, and you will start to get married decisions uniformly by the end of next year. >> does that depend on what the administration does and who wins and all that? >> not really. what the administration has put into play by virtue of the regulatory process is a relatively limited piece of
bracket normally pays 23%. is there something wrong with our tax laws that requires such large deductions of taxes for wealthy people? >> they reported federal taxes, state and local taxes. it gives people a fairer picture. that year i happened to pay a lot of state and local taxes, which, as you know, are deducted from the other. i looked it up the other day, and we paid, i think it's 342% of our gross income in taxes. s >> we did a little looking around to see about his. we can't find his 1981 tax return. it may have been released. maybe my bonet knows whether he released it. we did find his income is $1.4 million, and i think he paid the same as i did in taxes. he also made a reference that troubled me very much. he started talking about my chauffeur. you know, i'm driven to work by the secret service. so is mrs. ferraro, so is mr. mondale's. they saved the life of the president of the united states. i thought that was a cheap shot telling the american people to try to divide class, rich and poor. but the big question, it isn't whether mrs. ferraro is doing well. i think they are depog
but they encouraged that everybody would vote. now understand that under the new voter i.d. laws, i was told that in some cases, they are shifting id's from people who don't have an expiration date. i retired in 1991 and i have had the same id card for 21 years. guest: sergeant major, thank you for your service. i served on active duty the same time you did. i retired in 2004 and i joined in 1984. i am revealing my age now -- there are voting assistance officers on every duty station. if you are working in the battalion headquarters or company headquarters, you might be aware of who that is. i was a logistics marine which meant i was driving a tractor trailers, served the infantry, hold all over the state of california or in open now, japan and did massive field time. i had no awareness of who the voting assistance officer was, what my deadlines were to get registered to vote. there was no awareness or training. i think everybody and acted to the can agree that there are opportunities in the military to do mandatory training. everybody knows taxes are due on april 15. we set up tax centers o
the congress and the president today from passing a law that would require full and timely disclosure of contributions to these superpacs and others. the supreme court scission did not do that. they are working for themselves and their party. what we need is campaign finance reform. i will give you a simple principle, that the people who can contribute directly or indirectly are people who can vote. news flash -- corporations and unions cannot vote. it is a simple principle, one of the ones we are exposing to the public, and they overwhelmingly endorsed it. most of these areas -- it is very common sense. that is what the american people respond to. that is not how our politicians treat us. that is part of the problem. >> don't you think it is interesting in all of these really tough times, we have talked all about these big numbers, that the house, the sense, and the white house did not reduce their salaries? think about it. >> do you think they should? >> if you were in business, you would have to. they need to set the first example of making the cut back for themselves. >> leading b
. [applause] she is here with my sister and brother-in-law. they live right over the border in boston. i do not know if that is a good or bad thing to everybody here. i'm just kidding. my sister lives in boston. she works for dunkin brands. and that is good coffee, isn't it? this man knows how to balance a budget, cut spending, it knows fiscal responsibility. he is one of the leaders helping us to do that. that is charlie bass as well. let's give them a round of applause. [applause] friends, we have a choice to make. this is not your ordinary election. we are not just deciding who will be the next president for four years. we are deciding what kind of country we will have and what kind of people we will be for a generation. this is a high-stakes election. if we have four more years like the last four years, we continue stagnation. the choice is very clear. do we want a dynamic, growing economy that fosters opportunity or do we want a stagnant economy that fosters dependency? that is not who we are. in the live free or die state,we want to live free and prosper. we want to believe. [applause
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)